The Football Supporters Europe says the prices are “astronomical” and will drive fans away from the tournament. For the group stage, prices rise depending on the “attractiveness” of the national teams.
With less than seven months to go until the start of next year’s World Cup, Football Supporters Europe (FSE) has urged FIFA to suspend ticket sales, accusing the governing body of setting what it calls “astronomical” prices that, in some cases, exceed 3,000 euros.
In the supporters’ group’s view, the current pricing strategy does not merely make attendance difficult. It fundamentally changes who the tournament is for. FSE argues that the World Cup’s identity has always been rooted in mass participation, travelling support, and the cultural colour that fans bring to stadiums, and that the current direction amounts to a “monumental betrayal” of that tradition.
In comments to Reuters, FSE executive director Ronan Evain said he was taken aback by the figures attached to the new ticket phases, precisely because they appear designed for a narrow slice of the global audience rather than the broad fan base that historically defines the competition. He described the approach as one driven by profit maximisation, warning that it risks stripping the World Cup of its most essential element: genuine fan presence. “It’s a small group of people trying to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the tournament. We believe that approach puts the very essence of the competition at risk,” he said, stressing that supporters are not a decorative extra but a core part of the product. “Fans matter, you need life in the stands, you need colour, you need atmosphere and, at these prices, none of that will happen.”
The final is being held up as the starkest example. Evain pointed to prices that can reach around 4,000 dollars, roughly 3,410 euros, as evidence that the traditional idea of a fan saving up to attend a once-in-a-lifetime match is being replaced by a premium entertainment model. The criticism is not only about the absolute numbers, but about the logic behind them. A World Cup final is the symbolic centre of the tournament, and for supporters’ groups it is exactly the match that should remain accessible, at least in part, to ordinary fans who have followed their teams through qualifying campaigns and earlier rounds.
FSE’s concerns extend beyond the final, however, into the broader structure FIFA is using for group-stage pricing. Under the reported model, group matches are not priced as a single category of product. Instead, prices rise depending on the “attractiveness” of the teams involved, essentially introducing a demand-based tiering system at the very first stage of the tournament. To FSE, this is a second layer of unfairness because it means supporters are penalised for the perceived market value of the teams they follow, not for any difference in stadium quality or match importance. In practical terms, fans of globally popular teams could face a higher entry price from matchday one, making it harder to plan travel and budget for multiple fixtures.
Evain warned that this structure could have a chilling effect on travelling support, especially given the host location and the broader cost of attending a tournament staged in the United States. Ticket prices are only one piece of the total cost. Once flights, accommodation, internal travel between host cities, meals, and time off work are added, the overall financial burden can become prohibitive. He argued that many supporters who were already unsure about travelling are now confronted with what he called an extraordinary financial risk, a risk that becomes even more severe for families.
He offered a figure that illustrates the scale of the issue: around 30,000 dollars, roughly 25,575 euros, for a family of four to attend. Even if this estimate represents a high-end scenario including multiple matches and travel costs, its rhetorical power is obvious. It frames the tournament experience not as an attainable goal for committed supporters, but as a luxury holiday priced for a global elite. Evain’s broader point is that most football fans simply do not have that financial capacity, and that the assumption that European supporters can absorb such costs is also misguided. “The vast majority of football fans can’t afford that, not even in Europe,” he said.
FSE also highlighted the cumulative cost for a supporter attempting to follow their national team deep into the competition. By Evain’s calculation, a fan who wanted to accompany their team all the way to the final could end up spending close to 6,900 dollars, around 5,833 euros, even before factoring in the wider travel and accommodation bill that would typically dwarf the ticket spend. This, the organisation argues, transforms the World Cup from a shared social event into a segmented product where the most loyal supporters are priced out of the most meaningful matches.
Another major point of contention is the handling of Category 4 tickets, typically understood as the most affordable bracket. FSE says that, historically, these lower-priced tickets were distributed to supporters through their associations, helping ensure that dedicated fans, including those who travel regularly and support teams home and away, had a realistic path to attending. Under the current approach, FSE says FIFA is reserving these tickets for general public sale instead. Supporters’ groups argue that this undermines the established relationship between organised fan bodies and tournament organisers and reduces the ability to ensure that an identifiable core of active supporters are present, the very people who generate the atmosphere FIFA sells to broadcasters and sponsors.
At the heart of the dispute is a clash of philosophies about what a World Cup should be. From FIFA’s perspective, premium pricing can be justified as market reality: demand is enormous, the event is rare, operational costs are substantial, and revenue supports broader football development. From the perspective of organised supporters, that argument has limits. They believe there is a line beyond which pricing stops being a reflection of demand and becomes a deliberate strategy of exclusion. And once exclusion becomes a feature rather than an accidental side effect, the tournament risks changing character. Stadiums can still be full, but the composition of the crowd, the spontaneity, and the intensity can be different when attendance skews heavily toward corporate hospitality, occasional spectators, and high-income tourists.
FSE’s call to suspend sales is therefore not just a protest gesture. It is a demand for FIFA to revisit the structure and to engage directly with supporters’ organisations before the pricing model becomes fixed and irreversible. The group’s warnings are aimed at the practical consequences as much as the symbolism: fewer travelling fans, less visible national-team support, and a stadium atmosphere that feels flatter, particularly in group-stage matches where neutral spectators may not compensate for absent supporter groups.
Whether FIFA will respond by adjusting pricing, creating additional fan allocations, or restoring association-based distribution for cheaper categories remains to be seen. But with the tournament approaching rapidly, the debate is unlikely to fade. As Evain’s comments underline, the question is no longer only how much tickets cost, but what kind of World Cup is being constructed, and who will be able to experience it from inside the stadium rather than from a screen.
